Showing posts with label furloughs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label furloughs. Show all posts

Monday, August 24, 2009

UC Davis Responds to UCOP Ban on Teaching Furloughs

Davis Enterprise, 8/23/2009, p. 1

http://www.davisenterprise.com/

Furloughs won't cut class time



By Cory Golden

Enterprise staff writer



Faculty furlough days will not take place on instructional days, the University of California Office of the President announced Friday -- a move that will go against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of UC Davis faculty.



In a letter Friday, Lawrence Pitts, UC's interim provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, said that while the furloughs prompted by state budget cuts will cause problems for everyone, students shouldn’t suffer beyond the higher fees and larger and fewer classes they are facing already.

“In such difficult times, I believe that we must do everything we can to ensure that the students continue to receive all of their instruction,” Pitts wrote.

“Asking the faculty to carry a full teaching load during furloughs is a large request, but in my mind is justified by the university’s paramount teaching mission.”

Bob Powell, chairman of the UC Davis Academic Senate, said Saturday that, “in the letter, Provost Pitts is saying that all these other people trump faculty.”

Faculty asked for furlough days to fall on at least some instructional days in part because teaching, research and service are all required of them. An assistant professor’s research output is heavily weighted in tenure decisions, for example.

Powell said faculty has hoped for “some sense of balance.”

He said that he felt UC offered no strong statement about the disruption furloughs would cause careers, day-to-day lives, “and even young families,” no reasons why faculty should “bite the bullet,” and no plan for what UC will do so that furloughs are limited to a single year.

“Where’s the message he’s sending to these people?” Powell asked. “Basically he’s telling the faculty ‘keep working – keep doing research and teaching and service, you’re just going to get paid 8 percent less.’ … What I keep hearing from faculty is that they should just call it ‘pay cuts,’ because that’s what it is.”

A survey of 426 UCD Academic Senate members completed in July found that 82 percent wanted to see six to nine furlough days on what would normally be teaching days.

Similar sentiments echoed across the 10-campus system. The systemwide Academic Council sent a letter to Pitts indicating unanimous support for furloughs on six to 10 class days.

Under the furlough plan, faculty and staff will take up to 26 unpaid days off between September 2009 and September 2010, with the number depending on which of seven tiers their salary fits into. The loss in pay will range from 4 to 10 percent, with those who earn more than $240,000 taking the most unpaid days off.

Members of the senior management group, like chancellors and deans, will take no more than 10 furlough days, regardless of the size of their salary reduction.

Students are a key

Discussion on the pros and cons followed among executive vice chancellors, chancellors and those who handle state government relations and public affairs.

“With the exception of our council statement endorsing the concept that furloughs should affect instructional days, nearly all other groups expressed very strong concerns that the public would perceive that the students were receiving less education following several years of fee increases and anticipated additional increases,” said Mary Croughan, chairwoman of the systemwide Academic Council, in an e-mail Saturday.

“The ‘optics’ with the public and Legislature regarding potential future fee increases proved a driving factor in the decision to not have furloughs taken on instructional days.”

Croughan said she didn’t think professors would further resist the decision, “but the faculty do feel strongly that everything should be done to ensure that the furlough program does not go into a second year.”

Pitts briefly addressed that in his letter.

“We understand that the furlough program will cause hardships for the entire university family. As such, the president and the regents are committed to do everything possible to ensure that the plan ends after 12 months,” he said.

Linda Bisson, a professor of viticulture and enology and former chairwoman of the UCD Academic Senate, said that, in some ways, deciding whether to take furloughs on instructional days was a question with no right answer.

She said she understood why her colleagues wanted furloughs on class days, but added, “You have to keep in mind that it’s not just about faculty, it’s also about staff. The faculty can take a research day; but or staff, (furloughs) just mean less time, less money and the same workload.

“On the other side are students, so it’s a really tough decision. I’m sure that’s what the administration was struggling with: Whom do you make suffer?”

Redesigning classes?

Jonathan Eisen, professor of evolution and ecology at the UC Davis Genome Center, said in an e-mail that several issues led him to believe having furloughs on class days would not be the right idea.

“Making drastic changes in all courses across the entire campus would in my opinion be both very complex, as well as possibly more time-consuming than people imagine” and “highly unfair to the students.”

Eisen used an introductory biology course he’ll be teaching for about 700 students this fall as an example. The class will have four lectures weekly, plus labs taught by teaching assistants.

“I cannot or the life of me imagine how we would redesign the class this summer in order to accommodate furlough days,” he said, adding that it probably would end up as a shortened version of the class and much time spent in redesigning labs.

Eisen said public perception is “incredibly critical.”

“Certainly, it seems unfair to faculty that we get furloughed by then are perhaps expected to work just as much as previously while others who get furloughed actually have days off,” he said. “But the public relations side of things could be disastrous if this were done. … If we slash instructional time as, in essence, a way to spread the pain, it would come back to bite us.”

Chris Dietrich, vice president of the Associated Students of UC Davis, said he supported UC’s decision.

“Students are paying thousands of dollars to attend UC schools, and the cost keeps going up, so it would be very unfortunate to have students paying such high costs and then getting less in class education at the same time,” he said in an e-mail to The Enterprise.

Pitts noted that research is permitted on furlough days, but that many faculty will not be paid for extra research unless they have grants that compensate them for putting in more work. Furlough days can be used for outside professional activities that generate extra income.

Campus decisions

The decision from the Office of the President clears the way for campuses to announce how each would like to handle furloughs. Plans still remain subject to collective bargaining.

UCD is expected to do so in coming days, along with what other steps it will take to handle the $33.5 million budget gap that remains.

Including about $22 million in faculty and staff furloughs, UCD has dealt with $80.5 million of its $114 million state budget shortfall for 2009-10.

Other steps taken to close the gap include a $20.5 million cut from academic and administrative costs, $17 million from a systemwide student fee increase and $5 million saved by slowing down faculty hiring.

-- Reach Cory Golden at cgolden@davisenterprise.net or (530) 747-8046.

Monday, August 10, 2009

UCSD Administration Furlough Statement

UCSD
CAMPUS NOTICE
University of California, San Diego


OFFICE OF THE SENIOR VICE CHANCELLOR -
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

OFFICE OF THE VICE CHANCELLOR -
EXTERNAL AND BUSINESS AFFAIRS

August 5, 2009


ALL ACADEMICS AND STAFF AT UCSD (excluding UCSD Medical Center)

SUBJECT: Holiday Schedule - December 19, 2009 to January 3, 2010

During the 2009 holiday season, UC San Diego (excluding the hospitals and clinics) will officially close for 16 days between Saturday, December 19, 2009 and Sunday, January 3, 2010. This closure will result in significant energy savings from reduced operations.

The closure period includes four University paid holidays (December 24, 25 and 31, and January 1). Six days (December 21, 22, 23, 28, 29 and 30) are not paid holidays and non-represented Academics and Staff who are covered by the furlough plan will be required to use furlough days
to cover the time off. Furlough days may be used in advance of accrual.

Non-represented Academics and Staff who do not participate in the furlough plan may use accrued vacation, compensatory time off or leave without pay for the six closure days that are not paid holidays.

For exclusively represented employees, these closure days will be handled in accordance with the existing contract provisions and are subject to discussion and/or collective bargaining where applicable.

UC San Diego departments and units that need to remain open during the closure period must obtain approval from their respective vice chancellors.

The latest questions and answers regarding the Furlough/Salary Reduction Plan are available on the Office of the President budget website and on the At Your Service home page

Staff with questions regarding this closure period should contact the Employee Relations division of Human Resources at employeerelations@ucsd.edu or (858) 534-4115. Academic employees should contact Amy Rosen, Academic Personnel Services, at arosen@ucsd.edu or
(858) 822-2041. Exclusively represented employees may also contact their union representatives.

UCSC Faculty Association to Yudof on Cuts and Emergency Powers

Santa Cruz Faculty Association / American Association of University Professors
SCFA/AAUP 343 Soquel Ave #333 Santa Cruz, CA 95062
AAUP/SCFA 15 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704
scfa@aaup.org

July 1, 2009

President Mark Yudof
University of California
Office of the President

Dear President Yudof,

Thank you for soliciting comments from the Santa Cruz Faculty Association/American Association of University Professors Chapter, the only accredited union for Academic Senate Faculty in the U.C. system, concerning the three Proposed Furlough/Salary Reduction Plan Options in the letter from you, President Yudof, dated June 17th.

As you know, a tremendous amount of faculty energy is currently being expended in response to your request for commentary. We also weigh in, below, commenting on those assessments.
That said, we take this opportunity to make some points addressing larger issues of context and planning. The gist of our comments is that whatever alternatives are adopted in the short term (2009-10 and perhaps 2010-11), the University must rethink its long-term organization and M.O. if it is to accomplish its historic goals of producing teaching and research of the highest quality, and in the 21st century; and that the faculty are willing to be called upon to have a much larger voice and more creative part in that re-thinking. Your leadership in this matter could energize and enable the faculty to rise to the task, which is necessary if the U.C. is to maintain its historic reputation in new economic and technological conditions and circumstances of knowledge-production.

1. Even if one of the three alternatives you propose “worked” in the sense of closing the gap in funding for U.C. during 2009-10, any of them would have immediate and deleterious effects on faculty morale and therefore on our ability to recruit new faculty and retain the outstanding faculty we have. Many letters to you from individuals, departments, and Senate committees outline this point. They would have worked only in the very short-term; longer-term thinking is required.

2. A short-term solution to the shortfall is for you to take all income to the university that is not legally encumbered income and use it to mitigate any salary decrease. Several proposals have estimated that salary cuts, if this were done, would be in the range of 3% rather than 8%.

3. On the Public Relations front, you suggest that we should all “share the pain” equally, which sounds good in the abstract. But as Aristotle pointed out, to treat unequals as if they are equals is itself unequal. In that spirit, we suggest the following:

3.a. The highest administrators, including both the SMG and the MSPs, should take visibly larger cuts in both salary and perks. That would send a message that the leadership and higher bureaucracy of the University are committed to the well-being of faculty and students, not simply to themselves. The savings generated might be substantial even if not huge, but the sacrifice would be real on the administrators’ part, and the symbolism would be enormous. Faculty morale would improve, and the taxpayers of California and the members of the State Legislature would be impressed.

3.b. Conversely, asking the very lowest paid staff and faculty to “share the burden equally” by cutting their salaries is obscene. We recommend there be a cutoff-point below which the salary decreases would be 0% regardless of the method chosen to cut salaries. It should be a minimum of $65,000, and at least those salaries between the cut-off and another point – somewhere between $100K and $150K - should be graduated.

On a related note, we view the practice of balancing the budget on the backs of the lowest-paid employees, especially staff employees who see students every day and whom the faculty and students rely upon is extremely destructive and counter-productive to the academic enterprise, helping to destroy the fabric that holds the enterprise together. Faculty rely on these staff
and part-time staff for myriad small tasks demanded by the bureaucracy and technology of teaching and research, and knowing we have these staff members allows us to attend to our research and the creative aspects of teaching and program-building, which are what has made U.C. famous and (historically) the people of California grateful.

3.c. If you are serious about sharing sacrifice, you should note that some campuses and units already are sacrificing. U.C.S.C.’s faculty salaries, for instance, are the lowest in the U.C.system . The oldest and largest campuses not only have the highest salaries in the system, they also have two structural advantages we and other newer campuses lack: endowments and
many decades’ worth of alumni to be tapped; and they also have the advantage of the formula created in the early 1990s that provides them with higher base funding than the other campuses. The SCFA suggests that these structural differences should be noted and compensated for when
sacrifices are being asked for.

4. Long-term planning that puts Instruction and Research at the center and as the focus of the enterprise is needed. No one is better suited or situated to help you plan than the faculty.

4.a. The U.C. is involved in many enterprises and has many complex bureaucratic structures that do not directly support the quality and viability of either instruction or research, and many are tangential. These enterprises may be doing useful or harmless things, and some may be
making money. But the funds they generate may not be poured back into I&R. Some are actually losing money, draining it from the possibility of being used for I&R. Compounding these issues is the very common practice in the U.C. bureaucracy of promoting people through “Reclassification,” which requires that more people report to one. This promotion criterion over time tends to result in many people who report and few on the bottom doing the work. Again, it drains funds that could be used for I&R into the salaries and benefits for employees many of whom do not contribute directly to the academic enterprise.

a note on data and analysis: The U.C. Davis Administrative Task Force has written a report addressing Administrative growth in response to Regent Blum’s call for U.C. to become more
“strategically dynamic.” The report contains many wise recommendations. Although the report is about U.C.Davis, we have no doubt that its findings, and its recommendations, are relevant to other campuses and to UCOP. At UCSC, for instance, using data available on the UCOP web
page, faculty members at UCSC have calculated that UCSC has 137 employees in the MSP and SMG categories more than what would be expected if the bureaucracy had grown only proportionally to faculty, students, and direct support staff. Assuming that each has a salary at a
minimum of $100K, that means around $15 Million dollars is spent on their salaries, and with benefits, closer to $20M –a substantial amount of money for this campus.

The SCFA recommends that you draw on faculty with expertise in bureaucratic control and analysis, of which there are many and from many different disciplines, to analyze and recommend changes to the M.O. of bureaucratic growth at U.C., both at UCOP and on individual campuses. And we suggest that you take this issue very seriously. The issue is not simply to cut positions: it is to create a way of determining the relevance of positions and units to the support of the academic enterprise and a way to institute feedback from and to relevant faculty-controlled bodies about those non-academic positions and units.

4.b. Many faculty members feel hindered in creating knowledge and programs appropriate for the 21st century in the U.C. system. This is not the place for details, but we will say that the funding models used to distribute moneys to divisions, departments, and other units, and the lack of cross-divisional administrative leadership and support and even de facto discouragement of organizational innovations across divisions and departments, frustrate some of the most innovative, exciting, and relevant possibilities for I&R that the faculty would like to build and provide. It is our research and our teaching on which the U.C.’s historic reputation is
based.

The SCFA recommends that you take advantage of the outpouring of faculty energy, intellect, and commitment to U.C. that you have seen in the huge response you have received in your recent call for comments, in order to re-think, with faculty help, the administrative structures and divisions that directly support I&R. We are talking about things like enabling structures and institutes that are cross-disciplinary and crossdivisional, and changing funding structures that pit departments or divisions against one another. The faculty has many ideas about more
rational structures that could enable more high-quality and innovative research and teaching. Right now, many younger faculty are demoralized not only because of the economic difficulties and possible pay cuts but by the fact that it appears that this is not a good place to build a career in the long term.


Faculty research and teaching are the basis of U.C.’s enviable reputation. If longterm planning to enable it to be carried out in a satisfactory way is lacking, U.C. will decline, even if short term funding gaps are filled.

Cordially,
Shelly Errington
Chair of the Executive Board, Santa Cruz Faculty Association/AAUP
Joel Primack, Physics
Elizabeth Abrams, Writing
Kirsten Gruesz, Literature
Norman Locks, Art
Members of the Executive Board, Santa Cruz Faculty Association/AAUP

***

Addendum: Commentary on the Three Options:

Before commenting on the three options, we would like to express our concern about the context and timing of this proposal.

First, the adoption of any of these proposals will be legalized by the Draft Amended Standing Order 100.4, which allows the President of U.C. to declare emergencies—whether physical or financial--and grants him extraordinary powers which have never in the history of the University of California been deemed necessary, in spite of wars, a depression, and various previous fiscal crises. The faculty throughout the U.C. system and various Senate bodies and committees are nearly universally opposed to the adoption of this Amended Standing Order. Presumably the Regents intend to pass this Amended Standing Order immediately prior to granting you the powers to institute your choice of the Draft Presidential Furlough/Salary Reduction Guidelines. We find it disturbing that both are being treated as a fait accompli, most especially in light of the
extremely wide level of opposition to both items and skepticism about their wisdom.

We are also dismayed at the brevity, the lack of analysis, and the lack of information about either details or rationales for these alternative guidelines. We are also dismayed by the unseemly rush to adopt them, which gives both individuals and Senate bodies very little time to comment and very little time for you to make a considered judgment about larger issues of fiscal planning and
trade-offs. We are puzzled at the rush: it was known in Fall of 2008, if not before, that the country and California would be suffering severe economic hardships.

Strategic planning concerning alternatives if worst-case scenarios should occur – as we see they have—should have been done and publicized, with transparent and accessible data provided and widespread planning by faculty bodies solicited and enabled. The univrsity’s academic mission of teaching and research should have been at the forefront of discussions to set priorities and goals., and the long-term effects on these assessed and bolstered with data and historical analysis.

As it is, we are being asked to make a judgment between three very bad alternatives, in the space of a couple of weeks, with little space or time for considered judgment and analysis. Many faculty believe that other alternatives for solving or mitigating the university’s financial shortfalls could be more viable, and it is our understanding that various system-wide Senate bodies are working on at least one alternative.

That said, we believe that all three proposed alternatives, if adopted, will do harm to the University’s faculty and students, most particularly the two involving pay cuts, for these reasons among others:

1. Cutting pay without a concomitant cut in duties sends a message to the Legislature and to the public, as well as to higher Administrators, that the faculty and support staff can do the same amount of work for less pay.

2. It also does not have an automatic “sunset clause,” and it could easily become the new base pay.

3. Because U.C.’s salaries on many campuses are lower than those with whom we compare ourselves, and radically lower on several campuses (such as U.C.S.C., the lowest in the system), adopting these alternatives may well send us into a downward spiral. It will be more difficult to
recruit and retain outstanding faculty, and we will lose programs and personnel that have taken decades to build. It is far easier to cut and then rebuild bureaucratic and administrative functions and entities than it is for teaching and research functions. Losing academic personnel will be very very hard to recover from, compounded by the inevitable decline in morale and confidence in academia generally that U.C. is a stable, wellrun, university that values its faculty, its students, and its research and teaching mission.

4. As proposed by you in the Draft of June 17, 2009, the salary cut alternatives are unacceptably regressive. As our UCSC CPB’s letter pointed out, to dock 4% of the pay of people making less than $46,000/year is unconscionable. We believe that lowest-paid faculty and staff should have a 0% cut, and that the cut-off for that should be people whose salary is less than about $70,000/year. Any cuts above that should be progressive, with the highest-paid administrators and SMPs setting the example of solidarity in pain for the rest of the University employees.

5. Any salary-reduction plan must be worked out with explicit measures for mitigating the impacts on leave accrual, service credit, and retirement benefits. Historically, these benefits have allowed U.C. to compete for faculty hiring against higher-paying comparable institutions. If both salary and retirement benefits decline, it will take many years, perhaps decades, for U.C. to recover its former stature and therefore ability to recruit outstanding faculty and graduate students.


The alternative you propose concerning furloughs has its own logistical, logical, ethical, and perhaps legal issues. It does have the one advantage of making the sacrifices visible.

Santa Cruz Faculty Association on Furlough Process

July 31, 2009

EVC and Campus Provost David Kliger
University of California, Santa Cruz
1156 High Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95064

Dear Dave,

Thank you for offering faculty the opportunity to discuss campus implementation of the “extreme financial emergency” declared by the Regents on July 16. We welcome the informational session to be held on July 31, and urge you to make full use of the process of shared governance to consult with the Senate. Under HEERA, SCFA also has “the right to consult and be consulted” on such matters, whether bargainable or not, and you have the right to consult with SCFA. 356s(q)(4). We are always ready and willing to be consulted, now more than ever.

SCFA also writes to remind you that, at UCSC, such consultation is not the last step before implementing a proposed change in the terms and conditions of employment for Senate faculty. Any such proposal must, next, be submitted for bargaining with SCFA--the UCSC faculty's exclusive representative, and cannot be implemented until the HEERA-mandated bargaining process is done.

SCFA does not yet know which particular acts you take under the “extreme financial emergency” will be subject to bargaining . The Regents’ action on July 16 gives President Yudof wide discretion to allow variance among and within campuses. Depending on what he does, you may thus end up with a choice about which campus implementation model to follow, and about whether to act uniformly or flexibly within this campus. You will almost certainly have authority
to grant exceptions. All of these local choices must be proposed in advance to SCFA, and would be bargainable insofar as they affect the terms and conditions of employment for UCSC Academic Senate Faculty. The Regents’ action of July 16 explicitly recognizes that all legal rights under HEERA will remain in effect during the “emergency.”

By means of this letter, SCFA asserts its right to be notified of each and every policy choice UCSC has been given, or will be given, with respect to implementing the Regents declaration of “extreme financial emergency”—and also to be notified of each and every exception and variance to be granted under such policies.

We respectfully request that you affirm in writing SCFA’s right to bargain over any such matters that fall within the scope of representation, and to be notified more broadly of all policies and waivers pertaining to the “extreme financial emergency,” whether or not you deem these to be bargainable. Please respond to me, Shelly Errington, at SCFA/AAUP, and to the President of the Council of the University of California Faculty Associations, Robert Meister (CUCFA/AAUP).

Please use the AAUP address on our letterhead for this correspondence:
AAUP/SCFA or AAUP/CUCFA 15 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704.

Cordially,
Shelly Errington
Chair of the Executive Board
Santa Cruz Faculty Association/AAUP

Cc: UCSC Labor Relations
Cc: UCSC Academic Senate Chair

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Irvine Division of Senate Letter on UC Commission

July 28, 2009

Mary Croughan, Chair, Academic Council
1111 Franklin Street, 12th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607-5200

RE: University of California Commission on the Future

At an emergency meeting of July 28, 2009, the Irvine Division Academic Senate Cabinet considered the University of California Commission on the Future. The Commission is proposed to consult with the entire University community to help craft the vision to best serve California in the years ahead.

The Irvine Senate agrees that this is an important effort and that “this group will make recommendations that will strengthen the University and enhance its ability to continue to contribute to California’s long-term success and prosperity.”

After discussion, the Irvine Cabinet voted in favor of the following recommendation:
• Cabinet members believe that the number of regular Senate faculty on the Commission should be increased and should represent a broad range of academic disciplines and campuses.

The Irvine Division appreciates the opportunity to comment.


Jutta Heckhausen, Senate Chair


C: Martha Kendall Winnacker, Executive Director, Academic Senate

Irvine Division of Senate Letter on Furloughs

Mary Croughan, Chair, Academic Council
1111 Franklin Street, 12th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607-5200

RE: Furlough Plan Implementation

At an emergency meeting of July 28, 2009, the Irvine Division Academic Senate Cabinet considered different options for the furlough plan for 2009-2010. The UC Santa Cruz implementation calendar furlough plan was considered at the recommendation of a group of 74 UCI faculty who signed a petition. A majority of the Cabinet felt that the plan makes the consequences of the budget cuts and furloughs visible to the public, the Legislature, and the Regents while at the same time limiting the negative impact on instruction.

A large majority of Cabinet members were in favor of 11 common furlough days as closure for the entire campus. The Cabinet further voted to endorse the UC Santa Cruz furlough plan for 10 of these 11 days.

The Cabinet recommended assigning common instructional furloughs and campus closures on the following days for the 2009-2010 academic year.
Fall quarter
  • September 2
  • November 23,24,25 (Thanksgiving Week)
Winter quarter
  • January 4, 5 (delay start of winter quarter)
  • February 12
Spring quarter
  • March 29, 30 (delay start of spring quarter)
  • May 28
The Irvine Division appreciates the opportunity to comment.


Jutta Heckhausen, Senate Chair


C: Martha Kendall Winnacker, Executive Director, Academic Senate